Washington – CIA officials failed in some cases in following standard procedures in an intelligence analysis of Russian interference efforts in the 2016 elections, according to an internal review declassified on Wednesday.
Intelligence officers received an unusually short timeline for the analysis, there was an “excessive participation” by the superior leaders, and the staff members received unequal access to crucial intelligence about Russia, said the review of “learned lessons.”
But the review did not refute the findings of the 2017 Intelligence Evaluation that Russia freed an information war campaign designed to undermine the trust of Americans in the electoral process, damage Hillary Clinton and promote Donald Trump’s prospects in the 2016 elections.
“While the general evaluation was considered defensible, the procedure anomalies identified and the problems of crafts highlight the critical lessons to handle controversial or politically loaded issues,” said the review.
Follow the live policy coverage here
Trump and his allies have long rejected intelligence and other reports that indicate that Russia used false information and propaganda to try to influence the 2016 elections and include scales in their favor. They have accused intelligence officials and in charge of enforcing the law to plan to tie Trump with Russia and question the legitimacy of their victory in 2016.
A special lawyer designated during the first Trump administration considered how the CIA created its evaluation, but did not present criminal charges and did not report clear evidence that political bias contaminated the process.
A bipartisan investigation of the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2020 agreed with the 2017 intelligence evaluation and found no reason to dispute its conclusions.
In Trump’s second presidential mandate, his deputies have promised to contribute more transparency to the intelligence community and avoid any attempt to politicize his work.
The director of the CIA, John Ratcliffe, ordered the internal review this year and declassified it on Wednesday, according to the CIA.
The 2016 Voting Intelligence Evaluation, which President Barack Obama requested after the November elections, found that Russia sought to undermine the public faith in the democratic process and denigrate Clinton and that Moscow “aspired” to help Trump win the elections.
Two high -ranking leaders of a CIA mission center centered on Russia opposed the conclusion that Russia was aimed at helping to ensure Trump’s victory, according to the internal review. They argued that the opinion was mainly supported by a single intelligence report, while other judgments were backed by more information.
The review said the evaluation was carried out in an unusually short timeline. Instead of having months to prepare a complex and politically sensitive analysis, the authors had “less than a week to write the evaluation” and “less than two days to formally coordinate it” with other intelligence officers.
Multiple intelligence officers “said they felt” stuck “by the compressed timeline,” according to the review.
The review said that the senior CIA officials were very involved in the evaluation effort, which “was very unusual both in scope and intensity.” As a result, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the State Department Intelligence and Research Office were “completely exclusive” from the analysis, which was a “significant deviation” of the standard practice in the intelligence community, according to the review.
The authors of the 2016 evaluation and other CIA officers are also “opposed strongly”, including a reference in the analysis of the so -called Trump file compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele. The file included not verified accusations about Trump’s coludance with Russia.
In the end, a summary of the file was included in an annex, with a discharge of responsibility that it was not used “to reach the analytical conclusions” in the evaluation.
The review also found reasons to praise the 2016 evaluation, saying that much of the team’s work showed “solid” crafts with an extensive supply and that there were no signs of systemic problems.
John Brennan, who was director of the CIA at the time of evaluation, told NBC News on Wednesday that he was aware of the review but had not yet had the opportunity to read it.
